[esrh]

One thing is that CL has a huge ecosystem and a wide variety of compilers for every purpose you might have. Quicklisp probably beats racket and scheme in this regard, but today clojure might have an edge.

When you use racket and clojure specifically, you're kind of walling yourself into one compiler and ecosystem (two, for clj/cljs). This is a significant disadvantage compared to scheme and CL.

CL the way most people write it is way too imperative and OO for me; it reads like untyped java with metaprogramming constructs. Clojure and scheme in my opinion guide you towards the more correct and principled approaches.

Out of all the lisps, regardless of which ones I like the most, I objectively write emacs lisp the most. This is has definitely influenced my opinions on CL syntax; like my weird love hate relationship with the loop macro: on one hand it's a cool, tacit construct that's impossible in a non-lisp, but on the other hand it hides a lot of complexity and is sometimes hard to get right.